[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: "LDAP exchange" (was: Misuse of the term "association"in[Protocol])
Jim Sermersheim writes:
> As this thread winds down, I have to say (as a side note) that I do like
> RFC 1777's use of the term "session" over our term "association".
>
> Just couldn't resist picking at the not-yet-healed scab.
Well, we killed "association". But now that you mention it, I only find
a few "LDAP exchange"s that can't be replaced with "session"s. Perhaps
we should s/LDAP exchange/LDAP PDU layer/ (why didn't I think of that
term before?) in the texts below, and s/(on the) LDAP exchange/(in the)
session/ elsewhere:
OTOH, one shouldn't pick on scabs:-)
> 2. Conventions
> The term "TLS layer" refers to a layer inserted between the
> connection and the LDAP exchange that utilizes Transport Layer
> Security ([TLS]) to protect the exchange of LDAP PDUs.
>
> The term "SASL layer" refers to a layer inserted between the
> connection and the LDAP exchange that utilizes Simple Authentication
> and Security Layer ([SASL]) to protect the exchange of LDAP PDUs.
> 4.4. Unsolicited Notification
>
> An unsolicited notification (...) is used to signal an extraordinary
> condition in the server or in the LDAP exchange or connection between
> the client and the server.
> 4.14.1. StartTLS Request
>
> The client MUST NOT send any PDUs on this LDAP exchange following
> this request until it receives a StartTLS extended response and, in
> the case of a successful response, completes TLS negotiations.
> 4.14.3.1. Graceful Removal
>
> Either the client or server MAY remove the TLS layer and leave the
> LDAP exchange intact by sending and receiving a TLS closure alert.
>
> (...) If it wishes to leave the LDAP exchange intact, (...)
> (...) choose to allow the LDAP exchange to remain intact (...)
> 5. Protocol Encoding, Connection, and Transfer
>
> [The layer shown in the table.]
--
Hallvard